On this page: About Outputs Research questions Mailing list

Participants in Dagstuhl Seminar 24161

About

Research software is crucial to all computational research across many academic disciplines. Multiple communities are invested in research software, including computer scientists, and first and foremost among them, software engineering researchers, who investigate and develop methods to improve the quality of software and its lifecycle processes. The software engineering for science community does this specifically for research software. Research software engineers (RSEs) in turn select, customize, and apply software engineering methods from computer science within the domain of academic research to create research software.

There is currently an insufficient transfer of state-of-the-art research knowledge from computer science to research software engineering, and vice versa, in part, leading to an incomplete understanding in computer science of the domain-specific and general challenges in research software engineering.

This interactive seminar therefore brings the computer science and software engineering research community and the research software engineering community together to define a common language, and apply it to improve reciprocal knowledge transfer.

We assume communities “just happen,” but it’s hard work!
— Heidi Seibold

About the title

The title of the site, “(R)SE(R)”, is (nearly) a regular expression for various abbreviations we used a lot in our discussions: software engineering (SE); software engineering research (SER); research software (RS); research software engineering (RSE); and research software engineering research (RSER), aka research on RSE. The proper regular expression would be “(R)?SE(R)?”.

Outputs

Events organized (1)

2026

2024

Journal special issues (1)

2025

Peer-reviewed publications (7)

2025

  • Druskat, S., Grunske, L., Jay, C., & Katz, D. S. (2025). Research Software Engineering: Discovering and Bridging Knowledge Gaps. Computing in Science & Engineering, 27(2), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2025.3580023
    Abstract

    BibTeX
    @article{11119394,
  author = {Druskat, Stephan and Grunske, Lars and Jay, Caroline and Katz, Daniel S.},
  journal = {Computing in Science & Engineering},
  title = {Research Software Engineering: Discovering and Bridging Knowledge Gaps},
  year = {2025},
  volume = {27},
  number = {2},
  pages = {6-9},
  keywords = {Special issues and sections;Software engineering;Knowledge acquisition;Knowledge management;Collaboration;Computer architecture;Software architecture},
  doi = {10.1109/MCSE.2025.3580023},
  issn = {1558-366X},
  month = apr
}
  • Eisty, N. U., Carver, J. C., Cohoon, J., Cosden, I. A., Goble, C., & Grayson, S. (2025). Ten Simple Rules for Catalyzing Collaborations and Building Bridges Between Research Software Engineers and Software Engineering Researchers. Computing in Science & Engineering, 27(2), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2025.3569786
    Abstract

    In the evolving landscape of scientific and scholarly research, effective collaboration between research software engineers (RSEs) and software engineering researchers (SERs) is pivotal for advancing innovation and ensuring the integrity of computational methodologies. This article presents 10 strategic guidelines aimed at fostering productive partnerships between these two distinct yet complementary communities. The guidelines emphasize the importance of recognizing and respecting the cultural and operational differences between RSEs and SERs, proactively initiating and nurturing collaborations, and engaging within each other’s professional environments. They advocate for identifying shared challenges, maintaining openness to emerging problems, ensuring mutual benefits, and serving as advocates for one another. Additionally, the guidelines highlight the necessity of vigilance in monitoring collaboration dynamics, securing institutional support, and defining clear, shared objectives. By adhering to these principles, RSEs and SERs can build synergistic relationships that enhance the quality and impact of research outcomes.

    BibTeX
    @article{11003859,
  author = {Eisty, Nasir U. and Carver, Jeffrey C. and Cohoon, Johanna and Cosden, Ian A. and Goble, Carole and Grayson, Samuel},
  journal = {Computing in Science & Engineering},
  title = {Ten Simple Rules for Catalyzing Collaborations and Building Bridges Between Research Software Engineers and Software Engineering Researchers},
  year = {2025},
  volume = {27},
  number = {2},
  pages = {10-17},
  keywords = {Collaboration;Software engineering;Buildings;Training;Guidelines;Cultural differences;Software development management;Data mining;Research initiatives},
  doi = {10.1109/MCSE.2025.3569786},
  issn = {1558-366X},
  month = apr
}
  • Kehrer, T., Haines, R., Juckeland, G., Zhou, S., & Bernholdt, D. E. (2025). Do Research Software Engineers and Software Engineering Researchers Speak the Same Language? Computing in Science & Engineering, 27(2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2025.3557236
    Abstract

    Anecdotal evidence suggests that research software engineers (RSEs) and software engineering researchers (SERs) often use different terminologies for similar concepts, creating communication challenges. To better understand these divergences, we have started investigating how software engineering fundamentals from the SER community are interpreted within the RSE community, identifying aligned concepts, knowledge gaps, and areas for potential adaptation. Our preliminary findings reveal opportunities for mutual learning and collaboration, and our systematic methodology for terminology mapping provides a foundation for a crowdsourced extension and validation in the future.

    BibTeX
    @article{10948125,
  author = {Kehrer, Timo and Haines, Robert and Juckeland, Guido and Zhou, Shurui and Bernholdt, David E.},
  journal = {Computing in Science & Engineering},
  title = {Do Research Software Engineers and Software Engineering Researchers Speak the Same Language?},
  year = {2025},
  volume = {27},
  number = {2},
  pages = {18-26},
  keywords = {Software engineering;Terminology;Systematics;Training;Data mining;Surveys;Seminars;Knowledge engineering;Government;Software development management},
  doi = {10.1109/MCSE.2025.3557236},
  issn = {1558-366X},
  month = apr
}
  • Goth, F., Thiele, J. P., & The Teaching RSE Project. (2025). Foundational Competencies and Specializations of a Research Software Engineer. Computing in Science & Engineering, 27(2), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2025.3552156
    Abstract

    The term research software engineer (RSE) emerged to represent individuals working in the research community but focusing on software development. It has been widely adopted, and has several high-level definitions. However, their work varies depending on the institutional context. At one extreme, RSE roles look similar to traditional researchers. At the other extreme, they resemble an industrial software engineer. Most RSE roles inhabit the spectrum in between. Therefore, providing a straightforward, comprehensive definition of what an RSE does and what experience, skills, and competencies they require is challenging. In this summarized community article, we define the broad notion of RSEs, explore their different types of work, and define a list of competencies and values that frame their general identity. Further research and training can build upon and expand this foundation, and we expect graduates and practitioners to have a larger, more diverse set of skills than outlined here.

    BibTeX
    @article{10930785,
  author = {Goth, Florian and Thiele, Jan Philipp and {The Teaching RSE Project}},
  journal = {Computing in Science & Engineering},
  title = {Foundational Competencies and Specializations of a Research Software Engineer},
  year = {2025},
  volume = {27},
  number = {2},
  pages = {27-34},
  keywords = {Software engineering;Engineering profession;Codes;Training;Software development management;Knowledge engineering;Ethics;Computational modeling;Testing;Research initiatives},
  doi = {10.1109/MCSE.2025.3552156},
  issn = {1558-366X},
  month = apr
}
  • Tenquist, M., Azman, A., Meaden, R., Onikan, A., Jay, C., & Banerji, A. (2025). Recommendations for Developing Effective Inclusivity Initiatives in Research Software Engineering. Computing in Science & Engineering, 27(2), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2025.3539076
    Abstract

    In the United Kingdom, research software engineering is not only less diverse than the overall workforce in terms of race and gender but also falls behind both academia and the commercial software sector. This limits the availability of the diverse perspectives and skills needed to tackle today’s complex research challenges. To develop meaningful inclusivity initiatives, we need to understand the workplace experiences of underrepresented individuals who contribute to research software development. However, such sociological research often places a significant emotional burden on participants, which is not always balanced by sufficient benefits. In this article, we introduce 10 guidelines for conducting research that promote ownership and equity for participants from underrepresented groups, with recommendations specific to the research software community. Our guidelines are rooted in a coproduction approach, partnering with underrepresented individuals throughout the research process. This ensures that the most pressing issues are addressed, leading to initiatives that can positively influence research software culture and benefit research outcomes.

    BibTeX
    @article{10884709,
  author = {Tenquist, Miriam and Azman, Amanda and Meaden, Rochelle and Onikan, Adebimpe and Jay, Caroline and Banerji, Anita},
  journal = {Computing in Science & Engineering},
  title = {Recommendations for Developing Effective Inclusivity Initiatives in Research Software Engineering},
  year = {2025},
  volume = {27},
  number = {2},
  pages = {35-44},
  keywords = {Software engineering;Guidelines;Training;Interviews;Engineering profession;Data mining;Artificial intelligence;Programming profession;Research initiatives;Software development management},
  doi = {10.1109/MCSE.2025.3539076},
  issn = {1558-366X},
  month = apr
}
  • Druskat, S., Eisty, N. U., Chisholm, R., Chue Hong, N. P., Cocking, R. C., Cohen, M. B., Felderer, M., Grunske, L., Harris, S. A., Hasselbring, W., Krause, T., Linxweiler, J., & Venters, C. C. (2025). Better Architecture, Better Software, Better Research. Computing in Science & Engineering, 27(2), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2025.3573887
    Abstract

    Better software drives better research, a fundamental principle in the research software engineering community. Similarly, better architecture underpins better software, a core belief in the software engineering research community. Therefore, we advocate and emphasize the importance of designing robust architectures for research software to elevate the quality of research outcomes, and illustrate this with two case studies.

    BibTeX
    @article{11017520,
  author = {Druskat, Stephan and Eisty, Nasir U. and Chisholm, Robert and Chue Hong, Neil P. and Cocking, Ryan C. and Cohen, Myra B. and Felderer, Michael and Grunske, Lars and Harris, Sarah A. and Hasselbring, Wilhelm and Krause, Thomas and Linxweiler, Jan and Venters, Colin C.},
  journal = {Computing in Science & Engineering},
  title = {Better Architecture, Better Software, Better Research},
  year = {2025},
  volume = {27},
  number = {2},
  pages = {45-57},
  keywords = {Computer architecture;Codes;Software architecture;Measurement;Complexity theory;Software systems;Maintenance;Software reliability;Training;Research initiatives;Software development management},
  doi = {10.1109/MCSE.2025.3573887},
  issn = {1558-366X},
  month = apr
}
  • Hasselbring, W., Druskat, S., Bernoth, J., Betker, P., Felderer, M., Ferenz, S., Hermann, B., Lamprecht, A.-L., Linxweiler, J., Prat, A., Rumpe, B., Schöning-Stierand, K., & Yang, S. (2025). Multidimensional Research Software Categorization. Computing in Science & Engineering, 27(2), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2025.3555023
    Abstract

    Research software has been categorized in different contexts to serve different goals. We start with a look at what research software is before we discuss the purpose of research software categories. We propose a multidimensional categorization of research software. We present a template for characterizing such categories. As selected dimensions, we present our proposed role-based, readiness-based, developer-based, and dissemination-based categories. Since our work has been inspired by various previous efforts to categorize research software, we discuss them as related works. We characterize all of these categories via the previously introduced template to enable a systematic comparison. We report on the multidimensional categorization of selected research software examples.

    BibTeX
    @article{10944238,
  author = {Hasselbring, Wilhelm and Druskat, Stephan and Bernoth, Jan and Betker, Philine and Felderer, Michael and Ferenz, Stephan and Hermann, Ben and Lamprecht, Anna-Lena and Linxweiler, Jan and Prat, Arnau and Rumpe, Bernhard and Schöning-Stierand, Katrin and Yang, Shinhyung},
  journal = {Computing in Science & Engineering},
  title = {Multidimensional Research Software Categorization},
  year = {2025},
  volume = {27},
  number = {2},
  pages = {59-68},
  keywords = {Software engineering;Data models;Analytical models;Numerical models;Monitoring;Data visualization;Data collection;Aerospace engineering;Software development management},
  doi = {10.1109/MCSE.2025.3555023},
  issn = {1558-366X},
  month = apr
}

Unreviewed publications (3)

2025

  • Mannseicher, F., Linxweiler, J., Krupka, D. A., Speck, R., Wyatt, C., Stängle, D., Linnemann, K., Juckeland, G., Löffler, F., Kadasch, E., Dogan, Z. M., & Schlegelmilch, F. (2025). Key issues for the design of a German research software institution: General challenges, specific needs and possible solutions. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17347366
    BibTeX
    @misc{mannseicher_2025_17347366,
  author = {Mannseicher, Florian and Linxweiler, Jan and Krupka, Daniel Adrian and Speck, Robert and Wyatt, Claire and Stängle, Dorothee and Linnemann, Katja and Juckeland, Guido and Löffler, Frank and Kadasch, Eckhard and Dogan, Zeki Mustafa and Schlegelmilch, Falk},
  title = {Key issues for the design of a German research software institution: General challenges, specific needs and possible solutions},
  month = oct,
  year = {2025},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  doi = {10.5281/zenodo.17347366},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17347366}
}
  • Allen, S. M., Hong, N. C., Druskat, S., Hodges, T., Katz, D. S., Linxweiler, J., Löffler, F., Grunske, L., Seibold, H., Thiele, J. P., & Wittke, S. (2025). Ten simple rules for PIs to integrate Research Software Engineering into their research group. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.20217
    BibTeX
    @misc{allen2025simplerulespisintegrate,
  title = {Ten simple rules for PIs to integrate Research Software Engineering into their research group},
  author = {Allen, Stuart M. and Hong, Neil Chue and Druskat, Stephan and Hodges, Toby and Katz, Daniel S. and Linxweiler, Jan and Löffler, Frank and Grunske, Lars and Seibold, Heidi and Thiele, Jan Philipp and Wittke, Samantha},
  year = {2025},
  eprint = {2506.20217},
  archiveprefix = {arXiv},
  primaryclass = {cs.SE},
  url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20217},
  doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2506.20217}
}

2024

  • Druskat, S., Grunske, L., Jay, C., & Katz, D. S. (2024). Research Software Engineering: Bridging Knowledge Gaps (Dagstuhl Seminar 24161). Dagstuhl Reports, 14(4), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.4230/DagRep.14.4.42
    Abstract

    This report documents the program and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar "Research Software Engineering: Bridging Knowledge Gaps" (24161). The seminar brought together participants from the research software engineering and software engineering research communities, as well as experts in research software education and community building to identify knowledge gaps between the two communities, and start collaborations to overcome these gaps. Over the course of five days, participants engaged in learning about each others’ work and collaborated in breakout groups on specific topics at the intersection between the two communities. Outputs from the working groups will be collected in a journal special issue and distributed via a dedicated website.

    BibTeX
    @article{druskat_et_al:DagRep.14.4.42,
  author = {Druskat, Stephan and Grunske, Lars and Jay, Caroline and Katz, Daniel S.},
  title = {{Research Software Engineering: Bridging Knowledge Gaps (Dagstuhl Seminar 24161)}},
  pages = {42--53},
  journal = {Dagstuhl Reports},
  issn = {2192-5283},
  year = {2024},
  volume = {14},
  number = {4},
  editor = {Druskat, Stephan and Grunske, Lars and Jay, Caroline and Katz, Daniel S.},
  publisher = {Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address = {Dagstuhl, Germany},
  url = {https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagRep.14.4.42},
  urn = {urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-213530},
  doi = {10.4230/DagRep.14.4.42},
  annote = {Keywords: community building, Dagstuhl Seminar, knowledge transfer, research software engineering, RSE, software engineering research}
}

Posters (3)

2025

  • Eisty, N., Carver, J., Cohoon, J., Cosden, I., Goble, C., & Grayson, S. (2025, October). Ten Simple Rules for Catalyzing Collaborations and Building Bridges between Research Software Engineers (RSEs) and Software Engineering Researchers (SERs). US Research Software Engineering Conference 2025 (USRSE’25), Philadelphia, PA. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17281524
    Abstract

    Science thrives when researchers and software engineers share their expertise. As scholarship across disciplines becomes more dependent on computational methods, effective collaboration between Research Software Engineers (RSEs) and Software Engineering Researchers (SERs) is essential to drive innovation, optimization, productivity, reproducibility, stewardship, and solutions for interdisciplinary problems [1, 2, 3, 4]. This poster presents ten strategic guidelines to foster productive partnerships between these two distinct yet complementary communities. We very recently published these rules in a longer paper [5]; this poster summarizes the key elements to foster and encourage future RSE-SER collaborations. RSEs are deeply embedded in research contexts, often balancing software development with domain-specific knowledge. They focus on creating software to meet evolving research needs, including flexibility and experimental workflows. SERs are trained to develop robust, scalable, and maintainable systems emphasizing engineering principles, often aligning with industry best practices. Career paths, incentives, and constraints all differ between these communities. Thus, achieving collaboration between SERs and RSEs requires intentional effort and the application of change theories [1, 6]. To build synergistic relationships between SERs and SREs that enhance the quality and impact of research outcomes, we recommend these ten principles: Recognize The Two ities Are Different: RSEs and SERs must appreciate one another’ s unique roles and cultures, celebrate their strengths, and avoid assumptions. Acknowledge Collaboration Is Not Going to Just Happen: Partnerships must be deliberate; proactive initiation, inquiry into mutual goals, and consistent investment are needed. Define Clear Goals and Outcomes: Open discussion, measurable and well documented objectives, and regular check-ins ensure progress, though flexibility is needed too. SERs Must Engage with RSEs in Their Professional Environments: SERs should appreciate RSEs’ institutional obligations and resource constraints. SERs can gain these insights and build trust by attending RSE conferences, workshops, and talks. Identify the Intersection of Shared Research Software Challenges: Collaborations must address common challenges that are practically significant and academically valuable. Ensure Mutual Benefit in Collaboration: Both parties must earn immediate and long-term value. Incentive schemes must be understood. Authorship and leadership responsibilities should be explicitly addressed. Maintain an Open Mind Toward Emerging Challenges: Collaborators should be adaptable and ensure continuous dialogue to identify new challenges and solutions. Actively Advocate for Each Other: RSEs and SERs should showcase one another’s work to demonstrate respect and the value of collaboration. Maintain Vigilance and Recognize When Collaborations Are Off Course: To sustain a win-win relationship, SERs and RSEs must regularly review progress and concerns. Secure Institutional Support: All parties should seek funding, advocate for institutional recognition of RSE and SER roles, and promote frameworks that support collaboration (e.g., joint appointments and recognition programs). Recognizing the distinct cultures, priorities, and workflows of RSEs and SERs is fundamental to building productive partnerships and high quality research software.

    BibTeX
    @inproceedings{eisty_2025_17281524,
  author = {Eisty, Nasir and Carver, Jeffrey and Cohoon, Johanna and Cosden, Ian and Goble, Carole and Grayson, Samuel},
  title = {Ten Simple Rules for Catalyzing Collaborations and
                 Building Bridges between Research Software
                 Engineers (RSEs) and Software Engineering
                 Researchers (SERs)},
  month = oct,
  year = {2025},
  booktitle = {US Research Software Engineering Conference 2025 (USRSE'25), Philadelphia, PA.},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  doi = {10.5281/zenodo.17281524},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17281524},
  note = {Best poster award.}
}
  • Yehudi, Y., Cashman, M., Felderer, M., Goedicke, M., Hasselbring, W., Katz, D. S., Löffler, F., Müller, S., & Rumpe, B. (2025, February). Towards Defining Lifecycles and Categories of Research Software. deRSE25 Conference Proceedings, Karlsruhe, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15002661
    Abstract

    Research software comes in many forms at various stages of development. Traditional software engineering models often fall short in meeting the unique needs of Research Software Engineering (RSE) projects, confusing users, developers, funders, and stakeholders. A collaborative effort between software engineering researchers (SERs) and RSEs at a Dagstuhl seminar aimed to address this issue. The group found discrepancies in terminology and definitions, such as varying views on the stage of a software project. Through their work, they explored concepts like software maturity, intended audience, and future use. This poster presents a working categorization of research software types and an abstract software lifecycle model that can be customized for different projects. The goal is to guide decisions and development standards tailored to each stage and team. Community input is sought to improve these tools in future iterations.

    BibTeX
    @inproceedings{yehudi_2025_15002661,
  author = {Yehudi, Yo and Cashman, Mikaela and Felderer, Michael and Goedicke, Michael and Hasselbring, Wilhelm and Katz, Daniel S. and Löffler, Frank and Müller, Sebastian and Rumpe, Bernhard},
  title = {Towards Defining Lifecycles and Categories of
                 Research Software},
  month = feb,
  year = {2025},
  booktitle = {deRSE25 Conference Proceedings, Karlsruhe, Germany},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  doi = {10.5281/zenodo.15002661},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15002661}
}

2024

  • Yehudi, Y., Cashman, M., Felderer, M., Goedicke, M., Hasselbring, W., Katz, D. S., Löffler, F., Müller, S., & Rumpe, B. (2024, October). Towards Defining Lifecycles and Categories of Research Software. USRSE24 Conference Proceedings, Albuquerque, NM, USA. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13974638
    Abstract

    There is a large variety of types of research software at different stages of evolution. Due to the nature of research and its software, existing models from software engineering often do not cover the unique needs of RSE projects. This lack of clear models can confuse potential software users, developers, funders, and other stakeholders who need to understand the state of a particular software project, such as when deciding to use it, contribute to it, or fund it. We present work performed by a group consisting of both software engineering researchers (SERs) and research software engineers (RSEs), who met at a Dagstuhl seminar, to collaborate on these ideas. Through our collaboration, we found many of our terminologies and definitions often vary, for example one person may consider a software project to be early-stage or in maintenance mode, whilst another person might consider the same software to be inactive or failed. Because of this, we explored concepts such as software maturity, intended audience, and intended future use. In this poster, we will present a working categorization of research software types, as well as an abstract software lifecycle that can be applied and customized to suit a wide variety of research software types. Such a model can be used to make decisions and guide development standards that may vary by stage and by team. We also are seeking community input on improvements of these two artifacts for future iterations.

    BibTeX
    @inproceedings{ehudi_2024_13974638,
  author = {Yehudi, Yo and Cashman, Mikaela and Felderer, Michael and Goedicke, Michael and Hasselbring, Wilhelm and Katz, Daniel S. and Löffler, Frank and Müller, Sebastian and Rumpe, Bernhard},
  title = {Towards Defining Lifecycles and Categories of
                 Research Software},
  month = oct,
  year = {2024},
  booktitle = {USRSE24 Conference Proceedings, Albuquerque, NM, USA},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  doi = {10.5281/zenodo.13974638},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13974638}
}

Websites (1)

Music (2)

Online discussion spaces (3)

Research questions

The Research questions page lists open research questions for software engineering research on research software engineering. The list has been compiled from research questions provided by software engineering researchers before and during the Dagstuhl Seminar.

This is a living list and you are welcome to contribute if you know of work that covers one of the research questions, or if you have an open research question in this area.

Mailing list

For updates and to join the discussion, subscribe to our mailing list:
✉ ser-rse-bridge@listserv.dfn.de

Comments